[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58804-58820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21561]



[[Page 58804]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150-AH24


Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations to incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 
and 2003 Addenda of Division 1 of Section III of the American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV 
Code); the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Division 1 
rules of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code; and the 2001 Edition and the 
2002 and 2003 Addenda of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of 
Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) to provide updated rules for 
constructing and inspecting components and testing pumps and valves in 
light-water cooled nuclear power plants. This final rule incorporates 
by reference the latest edition and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM 
Codes that have been approved for use by the NRC subject to certain 
limitations and modifications. The NRC is also withdrawing its approval 
of Subsection NH of the 1995 through 2000 Addenda of Section III of the 
ASME BPV Code.

DATES: Effective November 1, 2004. The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the 
Office of the Federal Register as of November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The documents may be accessed through the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. The 
availability of the Regulatory Analysis and the Environmental 
Assessment is further discussed in Section 5 of this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Tingen, Division of 
Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Alternatively, you 
may contact Mr. Tingen at (301) 415-1280, or via e-mail at: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
2. Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule; and Final Rule
    2.1 Section III
    2.2 Section XI
    2.3 ASME OM Code
3. Section-by-Section Analysis
4. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report
5. Availability of Documents
6. Voluntary Consensus Standards
7. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
8. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
9. Regulatory Analysis
10. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
11. Backfit Analysis
12. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
13. Miscellaneous Public Comments on Proposed Rule

1. Background

    On January 7, 2004 (69 FR 879), the NRC published a proposed rule 
to amend 10 CFR Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and 
Utilization Facilities.'' The proposed rule presented revised 
requirements for construction, inservice inspection (ISI), and 
inservice testing (IST) of nuclear power plant components for public 
comment. For construction, the proposed rule would have permitted the 
use of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code, 2001 Edition and 
the 2002 and 2003 Addenda for Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components 
with one new modification.
    For ISI, the proposed rule would have permitted the use of Section 
XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 
2003 Addenda for Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class MC, and Class CC 
components with new modifications and limitations.
    For IST, the proposed rule would have permitted the use of the ASME 
OM Code, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda for Class 1, Class 
2, and Class 3 pumps and valves with no new modifications or 
limitations.

2.0 Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule; and Final Rule

    Fifty-five comments on the proposed rule were received from 
utilities, service organizations, and individuals. In response to the 
public comments, the NRC has either removed or revised some 
modifications and limitations that were proposed. A summary of the 
public comments applicable to the proposed rule and their resolution 
are provided in the following sections.
    The NRC has considered and resolved the public comments and 
incorporated changes into the final rule. The NRC is publishing the 
final rule in Sec.  50.55a to incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition 
and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Division 1 rules of Section III of the 
ASME BPV Code; the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 
Division 1 rules of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code; and the 2001 
Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code for 
construction, ISI, and IST of components in nuclear power plants. The 
2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Sections III and XI of 
the ASME BPV Code are acceptable for use subject to limitations and 
modifications. The 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of the 
ASME OM Code is acceptable for use with no new limitations or 
modifications.

2.1 Section III

    The proposed rule would have revised Sec.  50.55a(b)(1) to 
incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda 
of Division 1 of Section III of the ASME BPV Code subject to 
modifications and limitations. Accordingly, the existing modification 
and limitation for weld leg dimensions and independence of inspection 
in Sec. Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(ii) and 50.55a(b)(1)(v), respectively, would 
continue to apply when using the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 
Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code. The existing 
modification and limitation in Sec. Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(ii) and 
50.55a(b)(1)(v) would continue to apply to the 2001 Edition through 
2003 Addenda of Section III because the earlier Code provisions on 
which these regulations are based were not revised in the 2001 Edition 
through 2003 Addenda of Section III to address the underlying issues 
which led to the NRC to impose the modification and limitation. There 
were no public comments received on Sec. Sec.  50.55a(b)(1) and 
50.55a(b)(1)(v). Therefore, Sec. Sec.  50.55a(b)(1) and 50.55a(b)(1)(v) 
are adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(ii)--Weld Leg Dimensions
    One commenter stated that the footnote to circumferential fillet 
welded and socket welded joints in Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-
3673.2(b)-1 of Section III was renumbered in the Code. The NRC agrees. 
Footnote 11 to Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 is referenced 
in the existing regulation in Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(ii). Footnote 11 to 
Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 was renumbered as Footnote 7 
in the 1997 Addenda. Footnote 7 was renumbered as Footnote 11 in the 
2000 Addenda. Footnote 11 was renumbered as Footnote 13 in the 2002 
Addenda. Although the footnote was renumbered

[[Page 58805]]

in the Code, the contents of the footnote have not been revised. In 
consideration of this public comment, the existing regulation in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(1)(ii) is revised in this final rule to reference the 
contents of the footnote instead of referencing the footnote number. 
The revised Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(ii) states that the footnote to 
circumferential fillet welded and socket welded joints in Figures NC-
3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 that permits a socket weld leg dimension 
to be less than 1.09 of the nominal wall thickness of the pipe is not 
approved for use when using the 1989 Addenda through 2003 Addenda of 
Section III. This revision does not change the requirements in a 
substantive manner.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)--Seismic Design
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing limitation for 
seismic design in Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(iii) to prohibit the use of 
Articles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 when using the 1994 
Addenda through 2000 Addenda of Section III. The proposed rule stated 
that the limitation in Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(iii) does not apply to the 
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section III because the earlier 
Code provisions on which this regulation was based were revised in the 
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section III to address a number of 
the underlying issues which led the NRC to impose the limitation on the 
ASME Code provisions. Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in the proposed rule 
would have allowed use of these articles when using the 2001 Edition 
and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III with certain limitations and 
modifications. However, in consideration of public comment, the 
revisions to Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(iii) and Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in the 
proposed rule are not adopted in this final rule.
    Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule would have permitted 
the use of the alternative method for evaluating reversing dynamic 
building filtered loads and seismic loads in the 2001 Edition and the 
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code 
subject to modifications and limitations. However, Sec.  
50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(A) of the proposed rule would have prohibited the use 
of the alternative method for evaluating reversing dynamic loads for 
piping subject to loads generated by reflected waves caused by flow 
transients in NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600. In addition, 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(B) of the proposed rule would have prohibited 
the use of inelastic analyses for evaluating reversing dynamic loads in 
NB-3228.6. Also, Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(C) of the proposed rule would 
have provided an alternate Level B stress limit for reversing dynamic 
loads. Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(D) of the proposed rule would have 
supplemented the requirements for the calculation of inertial moment. 
Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(E) of the proposed rule would have prohibited 
the use of the B2 `stress indices specified in ND-3655(b)(3) 
and would have required that the allowable B2 `stress 
indices specified in NB-3656(b)(3) and NC-3655(b)(3) be used instead of 
the allowable B2 `stress indices specified in ND-3655(b)(3). 
Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(F) of the proposed rule would have allowed the 
use of an allowable stress limit of 6SM in the evaluation of 
the range of resultant moment only when it could be demonstrated that 
the global piping system response to the anchor movement does not 
create significant inelastic strain concentrations when using the 
provisions in NB-3656(b)(4), NC-3655(b)(4), and ND-3655(b)(4). 
SM is the design stress intensity limit for a material and 
is tabulated in Section II of the ASME Code. A demonstration that the 
anchor movement does not create significant inelastic strain 
concentrations would not have been required if an allowable stress 
limit of 3SM were used instead of 6SM in the 
evaluation of the range of resultant moment.
    The NRC received a large number of public comments on the 
modifications and limitations in Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(vi). The public 
comments provided technical reasoning why the modifications and 
limitations in Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(vi) were unnecessary and recommended 
their deletion. For example, ASME submitted an 83 page position paper 
in response to the modifications and limitations in (b)(1)(vi) of the 
proposed rule. It should be noted that the NRC's concerns regarding the 
alternative method for evaluating reversing dynamic building filtered 
loads and seismic loads began with changes in the 1994 Addenda through 
1996 Addenda and were discussed in an amendment to Sec.  50.55a issued 
in September 1999 (64 FR 51370). The ASME formed a special working 
group to evaluate the NRC's concerns. Although the special working 
group resolved some the NRC's concerns, a few significant issues 
remain.
    The ASME submittal also recommended that the NRC prohibit the use 
of the revised seismic design provisions in the 2001 Edition and the 
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III at this time. The ASME stated that 
the NRC and ASME should resolve their technical differences over the 
modifications and limitations in Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(vi) before 
permitting the use of revised seismic design provisions in the 2001 
Edition and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III. The NRC agrees. This 
would allow the NRC to discuss the technical details including recent 
piping dynamic testing in a more comprehensive manner. In consideration 
of public comments, the revision to Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(iii) in the 
proposed rule and the modifications and limitations in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in the proposed rule are not adopted in this final 
rule. The existing limitation for seismic design in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(1)(iii) is revised in this final rule to prohibit the use of 
Articles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 when using the 1994 
Addenda through 2003 Addenda of Section III.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vii)--Subsection NH
    Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vii) in the proposed rule would have 
prohibited the use of Subsection NH of the 2001 Edition through 2003 
Addenda of Section III of the ASME BPV Code and would have withdrawn 
current approval of Subsection NH of the 1995 Addenda through 2000 
Addenda of Section III of the ASME BPV Code. The scope of Subsection NH 
includes Class 1 components that function in water, steam, sodium, 
helium, or any other process fluid. The special design provisions in 
Subsection NH apply to Class 1 components that are required to function 
at elevated metal temperatures where creep and relaxation effects may 
be significant and for which the stress limits and design provisions in 
Subsection NB of Section III are not applicable. These stress limits 
and design provisions of Subsection NB are applicable only to service 
conditions where creep and relaxation effects do not exist. The 
proposed rule stated that the elevated temperature provisions in 
Subsection NH, applicable to certain Class 1 components in future 
advanced reactor designs such as liquid metal and high-temperature gas-
cooled reactor designs, have not been reviewed by the NRC for technical 
adequacy because the design provisions in Subsection NH were thought 
not to be applicable to any currently operating nuclear power plant nor 
to any currently approved standard advanced light-water reactor plant 
design.
    A commenter stated that prohibiting the use of Subsection NH 
because the NRC has not performed a technical review is not adequate 
justification. The commenter stated that the NRC should provide 
technical reasons why Subsection NH is not approved for use.

[[Page 58806]]

The NRC disagrees and, with the exception of the application of 
Subsection NH to pressurizer heater sleeves constructed from Type 316 
stainless steel, is unable to provide technical comments on Subsection 
NH at this time because it has not performed a comprehensive review of 
Subsection NH. A public comment on the proposed rule indicated that 
Subsection NH is used for the design and construction of pressurizer 
heater sleeves (a pressure boundary component). Accordingly, the NRC is 
approving the use of Subsection NH for this application. The maximum 
service condition for Type 316 stainless steel components that are 
designed and constructed in accordance with the currently approved 
provisions in Subsection NB is 800 [deg]F because the reduction in 
material strength due to creep and relaxation effects are negligible at 
temperatures below 800 [deg]F. Subsection NH provides specialized 
design and construction provisions when temperatures exceed 800 [deg]F. 
The temperature of Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves 
reaches approximately 900 [deg]F; therefore, Subsection NH is 
applicable. At 900 [deg]F, creep and relaxation effects reduce the 
allowable stress at 800 [deg]F by approximately 10 percent for Type 316 
stainless steel. Therefore, a 100 [deg]F increase in temperature above 
800 [deg]F does not significantly reduce the material strength of Type 
316 stainless steel. The use of pressurizer heater sleeves constructed 
of Type 316 stainless steel is limited to only one type of reactor 
plant design in the United States. Pressurizer heater sleeves in other 
reactor plant designs are constructed of different materials and the 
temperature of the pressurizer heater sleeves in the other designs does 
not exceed 800 [deg]F. Furthermore, many years operating experience 
indicate that pressurizer heater sleeves have not experienced creep and 
relaxation effects. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the use of 
Subsection NH for Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves 
is technically acceptable and will provide reasonable assurance of 
adequate protection to public health and safety.
    The NRC has not performed a full technical review of Subsection NH 
for other Class 1 components in future advanced reactor designs such as 
liquid metal and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designs where 
service conditions could reach 1500 [deg]F. At these service 
conditions, creep and relaxation are more pronounced. Therefore, the 
NRC is unable to approve the use of Subsection NH for components other 
than Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves. In 
consideration of public comment, Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(vii) is revised to 
allow the application of Subsection NH to Type 316 stainless steel 
pressurizer heater sleeves only where service conditions do not cause 
the component to reach temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F. Section 
50.55a(b)(1)(vii) in the proposed rule is renumbered as Sec.  
50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in this final rule. Section 11, ``Backfit Analysis,'' 
below, has been revised to address this last comment.

2.2 Section XI

    The proposed rule would have revised Sec.  50.55a(b)(2) to 
incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda 
of Division 1 of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code subject to proposed 
modifications and limitations. Accordingly, the existing modifications 
and limitations for quality assurance, Class 1 piping, underwater 
welding, reconciliation of quality requirements, certification of 
nondestructive examination personnel, substitution of alternative 
method, and Table IWB-2500-1 examination requirements in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xii), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xix), 
and Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxi), respectively, would continue to apply when 
using the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, 
of the ASME BPV Code. The existing modifications and limitations in 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xii), 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) would continue to apply 
to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI because the 
earlier Code provisions on which these regulations are based were not 
revised in the 2001 through 2003 Addenda of Section XI to address the 
underlying issues which led the NRC to impose the modifications and 
limitations. There were no public comments on Sec.  50.55a(b)(2), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xii), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xxi). Therefore, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xii), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) are adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii)--Reconciliation of Quality Requirements
    One commenter stated that the existing modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) for the reconciliation of quality requirements is no 
longer applicable because a footnote was added to IWA-4222 that 
resolves the issue. The footnote was added in the 1999 Addenda to 
Section XI and clarifies that the provision in IWA-4222(a)(2) does not 
negate the requirement to implement the Owner's quality assurance 
program nor does it affect Owner commitments to regulatory and 
enforcement authorities. The NRC agrees that Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) 
is no longer applicable because the footnote addresses NRC reasons for 
initially implementing Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) in final rule dated 
September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51374). In consideration of this public 
comment, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) is revised in this final rule to be 
applicable only when using the 1995 Addenda through 1998 Edition of 
Section XI.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)--Footnote 10
    The proposed rule would have added Footnote 10 to Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2) to indicate that the NRC has issued Order EA-03-009 which 
imposed enhanced reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head inspections at 
pressurized water reactors (PWRs). In February 2003, the NRC issued the 
Order to licensees of PWRs to establish interim inspection requirements 
that would ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. The 
Order was revised on February 20, 2004. The Order imposes enhanced 
requirements for PWR licensees that supplement areas of Section XI of 
the ASME BPV Code to ensure the structural and leakage integrity of the 
reactor coolant pressure boundary. The requirements imposed by the 
Order do not conflict with the requirements in Section XI of the ASME 
BPV Code but are needed to enhance Code requirements. Licensees are 
required to meet the requirements in the Order as a supplement to the 
requirements in the 2001 Edition with the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 
Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. Licensees of PWRs using editions and 
addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code earlier than the 2001 Edition 
are currently required to apply the requirements in the Order to 
supplement the use of their applicable Code of record.
    One commenter incorrectly interpreted Footnote 10 in the proposed 
rule. The commenter stated that Footnote 10 would incorporate the 
requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 50.55a. The NRC notes that it 
never intended to incorporate the requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 
50.55a in this rulemaking. This final rule does not incorporate the 
requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 50.55a; it simply alerts the 
reader to the Order. Footnote 10 is adopted without change in this 
final rule.

[[Page 58807]]

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)--Examination of Concrete Containments
    This proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for 
examination of concrete containments in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(viii) to 
apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 
1, of the ASME BPV Code. The modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(viii) 
continues to apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section 
XI because the earlier ASME BPV Code provisions on which this 
regulation was based were not revised in the 2001 Edition through 2003 
Addenda of Section XI to address the underlying issues which led the 
NRC to impose the modification of the ASME Code provisions. The 
proposed rule would have also revised the existing modification for 
examination of concrete containments in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(viii) to 
require a new modification, which is discussed below, when using the 
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the 
ASME BPV Code. There were no public comments received on Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(viii) in the proposed rule. Therefore, Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(viii) is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G)--Corrosion Protection Medium (CPM)
    Section 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G) of the proposed rule would have 
required that CPM be restored in accordance with the quality assurance 
program requirements specified in IWA-1400 when using the 2001 Edition 
through 2003 Addenda of Section XI. IWL-4110 of Section XI defines the 
scope of the repair and replacement activities associated with concrete 
containments. IWL-4110(b) specifies those items that are exempt from 
repair and replacement activity requirements. A new provision, IWL-
4110(b)(3), was added in the 2002 Addenda exempting the removal, 
replacement, or addition of the concrete containment post-tensioning 
system CPM from repair and replacement requirements. Prior to the 2002 
Addenda, IWL-4000 specifies that the CPM must be restored following a 
concrete containment post-tensioning system repair and replacement 
activity.
    CPM is applied to containment post-tension system components to 
prevent corrosion. The function of the containment post-tension system 
is to ensure the structural integrity of the concrete containment 
structure under design basis loadings, and CPM is relied upon to 
maintain the integrity of the containment post-tension system. 
Therefore, the restoration of the concrete containment post-tensioning 
system CPM is important to ensure that the containment integrity and 
load capacity satisfy design basis requirements under accident 
conditions. For example, the acceptable concentration of water soluble 
chlorides, nitrates and sulfides of the replacement CPM must be 
verified. The amount of CPM to be installed and the method used to 
apply the CPM must be specified.
    One commenter stated that the provisions in IWL-2500 must be 
applied to the restoration of CPM, and that these provisions were not 
revised in the 2002 Addenda. The commenter stated that quality 
assurance requirements must be applied when implementing IWL-2500. The 
NRC disagrees. The NRC believes that the provisions in IWL-2500 are not 
applicable to items that are exempt from Code repair and replacement 
activity requirements. Therefore, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G) is 
adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)--Examination of Metal Containments and the 
Liners of Concrete Containments
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for 
examination of metal containments and the liners of concrete 
containments in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix) to apply to the 2001 Edition 
through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code. 
The proposed rule stated that with the exception of the visual 
examination requirements specified in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B), the 
modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix) would continue to apply to the 
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI because the earlier 
Code provisions on which this regulation was based were not revised in 
the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI to address the 
underlying issues which led to the NRC to impose the modification on 
the ASME Code provisions. The minimum illumination and distance visual 
examination provisions in Table IWA-2210-1 in Section XI were revised 
in the 2003 Addenda and are equivalent to the minimum illumination and 
distance visual examination requirements in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B). 
Therefore, the proposed rule revised the existing modification for 
examination of metal containments and the liners of concrete 
containments in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix) to specify that Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) does not apply when using the 2001 Edition with the 
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code.
    Several commenters stated that the revision to Table IWA-2210-1 in 
the 2003 Addenda of Section XI was rescinded by a special Erratum in 
December 2003. Therefore, the existing modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) should continue to apply when using the 2001 
Edition with the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of 
the ASME BPV Code. The NRC agrees. In consideration of the public 
comment, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix) is revised in this final rule to 
require that Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) continue to apply when using the 
2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii)--Flaws in Class 3 Piping
    The proposed rule would have revised Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) to 
eliminate the authorization to use Code Case N-513. The existing 
regulation in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) authorizes the use of Code Cases 
N-513 and N-523-1. Code Case N-513 is now approved in Regulatory Guide 
1.147, ``Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, 
Division 1.'' Regulatory Guide 1.147 (Revision 13) was incorporated by 
reference into Sec.  50.55a in a final rule dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR 
40469). Thus, it is no longer necessary to authorize the use of Code 
Case N-513 in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) because this code case is 
included in Regulatory Guide 1.147. Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) would 
continue to approve the use of Code Case N-523-1 because Code Case N-
523-1 is currently not included in Regulatory Guide 1.147. There were 
no public comments received on Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) and therefore 
is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv)--Appendix VIII Personnel Qualification
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for 
Appendix VIII personnel qualification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) to 
apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 
1, of the ASME BPV Code. The modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) 
continues to apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section 
XI because the earlier Code provisions on which this regulation was 
based were not revised in the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 
Section XI to address the underlying issues which led to the NRC to 
impose the modification. The proposed rule also revised Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) to correct an oversight. The existing regulation 
incorrectly states that the annual practice requirements in VII-4240 of 
Supplement VII of Section XI may be used. The reference to Supplement 
VII is incorrect; it should be Appendix VII.

[[Page 58808]]

Therefore, the proposed rule stated that Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) should 
be revised to state that the annual practice requirements in VII-4240 
of Appendix VII of Section XI may be used.
    One commenter requested that the existing annual training 
requirements in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) be revised to change the 
required number of hours of training that must be completed before 
performing ultrasonic examinations. The NRC declines to make this 
change because the proposed rule did not suggest an amendment to the 
required number of hours of training that must be completed before 
performing ultrasonic examinations, and the NRC currently does not have 
a basis for supporting such a change. There were no other public 
comments received on Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xiv). Therefore, Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)--Appendix VIII Qualification and Coverage 
Requirements
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for 
Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification requirements in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to apply to the 2001 Edition of Section XI, Division 
1, of the ASME BPV Code. The modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv) 
would continue to apply to the 2001 Edition of Section XI because the 
earlier Code provisions on which this regulation was based were not 
revised in the 2001 Edition of Section XI to address the underlying 
issues which led the NRC to impose the modification. There were no 
public comments received on Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Therefore, Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) is adopted without change in this final rule.
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing regulation in 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) to specify that the flaw depth sizing 
provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII are 
not applicable when Appendix VIII is implemented in accordance with 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) currently provides an 
alternative method that licensees may use for implementing Appendix 
VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII. The existing regulation 
specifies that the flaw depth sizing provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(a) 
of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII are not applicable when using the flaw 
depth sizing provisions specified in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). This 
revision is needed to correct an oversight that the flaw depth sizing 
provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII also 
do not apply when using the flaw depth sizing provisions specified in 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). Thus, the flaw depth sizing provisions in 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) were revised in the proposed rule to also 
reference Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII. There 
were no public comments received on Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). 
Therefore, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) is adopted without change in 
this final rule.
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing regulation in 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) to eliminate the approval to use Code Case N-
552. Code Case N-552 is now approved in Regulatory Guide 1.147, 
Revision 13, which was incorporated by reference into Sec.  50.55a in a 
final rule dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40469). Thus, it is no longer 
necessary to approve the use of Code Case N-552 in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) because this code case is included in Regulatory 
Guide 1.147. There were no public comments received on Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J). Therefore, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) is adopted 
without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)--System Leakage Test
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for 
system leakage tests in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xx) to continue prohibiting 
the use of certain system leakage test provisions in the 1997 Addenda 
through 2001 Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. 
The proposed rule stated that the modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xx) does not apply to the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section 
XI because the earlier Code provisions on which this regulation was 
based were revised in the 2002 Addenda of Section XI to address the 
underlying issues which led to the NRC to impose the modification of 
the ASME Code provisions. The revised system leakage test provisions in 
IWA-5213(a) are equivalent to the existing requirements in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xx).
    One commenter stated that the system leakage test provisions in 
IWA-5213(a) were revised in the 2003 Addenda of Section XI not the 2002 
Addenda as stated in the proposed rule. The NRC agrees. In 
consideration of the public comment, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xx) is revised 
in this final rule so that the modification applies when using IWA-
5213(a), 1997 through 2002 Addenda.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii)--Surface Examination
    Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) in the proposed rule would have 
prohibited the use of a new provision in IWA-2220 allowing ultrasonic 
(UT) examination. The provisions of Code Case N-615, ``Ultrasonic 
Examination as a Surface Examination Method for Category B-F and B-J 
Piping Welds,'' were incorporated into IWA-2220 in the 2001 Edition of 
Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. Code Case N-615 and IWA-2220 allow a 
surface examination to be conducted using a UT examination method. The 
UT examination is conducted from the inside surface of certain piping 
welds. Other allowable surface examination methods (magnetic particle 
or liquid penetrant) are conducted from the outside surface of certain 
piping welds. The purpose of the these surface examinations is to 
identify flaws in the outer surface of the weld. Revision 13 to 
Regulatory Guide 1.147 did not approve the use of Code Case N-615 and 
the proposed rule would have prohibited the use of the same UT 
examination specified in IWA-2220. There are no provisions in Section 
XI that address qualification requirements and performance 
demonstration criteria and requirements to ensure proper consideration 
of flaws in the outer surface of a piping weld when conducting a UT 
examination from the inside surface of the piping weld.
    One commenter stated that the proposed Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) 
should be deleted because IWA-2220 provides an acceptable UT 
performance demonstration requirement. The NRC disagrees. For example, 
IWA-2220 does not provide test specimen requirements, piping weld 
material requirements, acceptable flaw types, performance demonstration 
detection acceptance criteria, nor acceptable pipe specimen thickness.
    A number of commenters requested that Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) be 
revised to allow IWA-2220 surface examinations be conducted by UT 
examination provided that the UT examination method has been 
demonstrated by a successful performance demonstration. The commenters 
stated that their revision addresses the NRC concern that there are no 
qualification requirements or performance demonstration criteria in 
Section XI for conducting a UT examination from the inside surface of 
the piping weld. The NRC disagrees. The revision, as proposed by the 
commenters, does not address the concern in the proposed rule. Appendix 
I of Section XI requires that all piping examinations be performed in 
accordance with Appendix VIII qualified procedures and personnel. The 
final rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), requires that 
licensees implement Appendix VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII 
on an expedited basis. The NRC imposed this requirement on an expedited 
basis

[[Page 58809]]

because there were shortcomings in the qualifications of personnel and 
procedures in ensuring the reliability of nondestructive examination of 
the reactor vessel and other components of the reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary. The NRC believes that the imposition of performance 
demonstration in Appendix VIII and its supplements has enhanced the 
overall level of assurance of the reliability of UT examination 
techniques in detecting and sizing flaws. The NRC is not approving the 
use of new UT provision in IWA-2220 because qualification requirements 
and performance demonstration criteria for the new UT provision are not 
addressed in Appendix VIII. Therefore, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) is 
adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii)--IWA-4461.4.2 Evaluation of Thermally Cut 
Surfaces
    Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) of the proposed rule would have 
required that all the adverse effects associated with the elimination 
of mechanical processing following a thermal removal process listed in 
IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) be considered by tests, inspections and 
analyses. Tests, inspections and analyses are further discussed below. 
IWA-4461.4 requires that the surface left in service after the metal is 
removed by a thermal removal process be mechanically processed. A 
thermal removal process is used to remove metal from a weld or base 
metal. Thermal removal processes include oxyacetylene cutting, carbon 
arc gouging, plasma cutting, metal disintegration machining and 
electrodischarge machining. Thermal removal processes can leave cracks, 
stress risers, very rough surfaces or heavy oxidations on the surface 
of the metal. Mechanical processing involves the removal of any defects 
from a surface of the metal by grinding, machining or filing, for 
example. Subparagraph IWA-4461.4.2 was added in the 2001 Edition to 
allow the elimination of mechanical processing of a thermally cut 
surface when, due to field conditions, mechanical processing is deemed 
impractical. IWA-4461.4.2 allows the elimination of mechanical 
processing of thermally cut surfaces provided that the adverse effects 
associated with the elimination of mechanical processing listed in IWA-
4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are considered by an evaluation. The adverse 
effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) include soundness of 
cut, material toughness, corrosion resistance, stresses, and oxidation 
or other contamination. The proposed rule stated that it is unclear if 
all the adverse effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are 
required to be considered by evaluation or are licensees supposed to 
determine which of the adverse effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) 
through (5) would be applicable. The proposed rule stated that tests, 
inspections, and analyses would be required to evaluate the adverse 
effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5). The proposed rule did 
not describe any specific test, inspection or analysis. Licensees would 
be responsible for determining the appropriate test, inspection, and 
analysis for each of the items listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through 
(5).
    Several commenters explained that the provision IWA-4461.4.2(a) 
requires that the evaluation shall include all those adverse effects 
listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) in the evaluation. Other 
commenters stated that not all of the adverse effects listed in IWA-
4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are applicable to all thermal processes and 
that IWA-4461.4.2(c) requires that the evaluation document any adverse 
effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (a)(5) that are not 
applicable in the Repair/Replacement Plan. Commenters also stated that 
it is unreasonable for NRC to require tests, inspections, and analyses 
to address each of the adverse effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) 
through (5) to eliminate mechanical processing of a thermally cut 
surface. The tests, inspections, and analyses as proposed in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) would make it impracticable for a licensee to use 
the provisions in IWA-4461.4.2.
    The NRC believes that it is impracticable to justify the 
elimination of mechanical processing of a thermally cut surface in an 
evaluation as specified in IWA-4461.4.2. It is not possible to evaluate 
the adverse effects that can occur as a result of thermal cutting 
without performing appropriate tests, inspections, and analyses. For 
example, the provisions in IWA-4461.4.2 could be used to eliminate 
mechanical processing for a carbon arc-gouging cut that removed a 
hanger in a high radiation area. If the cut is made too close to the 
load-bearing component, the metal on the load-bearing component could 
be affected by an errant arc touching the load-bearing surface or 
allowing some of the cutting spatter to become attached to the load-
bearing surface leaving an arc strike, a heat-affected zone or a stress 
riser on the surface. The area around the cut must be inspected to make 
certain that the cutting has not damaged the surface of the component. 
Elimination of the inspection in a documented evaluation would not be 
adequate even for this simple thermal cutting example. Furthermore, the 
cut must be a safe distance from the surface of the component to 
eliminate any possibility of leaving a mechanical (a rough, oxidized or 
carburized surface) or metallurgical (a heat affected zone) stress 
riser near or in the surface of the component. If the cut is made too 
close to the final surface, a heat-affected zone from the cut could be 
left in the final load-bearing surface or a very rough, highly oxidized 
or carburized surface could be left very near the final load-bearing 
surface. The exact distance from the cut surface must be determined by 
an analysis or qualification testing of the configuration, not by a 
documented evaluation.
    The NRC agrees with the comment that the test, inspection, and 
analysis provisions in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) of the proposed rule 
would make it impracticable for a licensee to use IWA-4461.4.2. 
Therefore, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) is revised in this final rule to 
prohibit the use of the new provisions in IWA-4461.4.2.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv)--UT Performance Demonstration and Coverage 
Requirements
    Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) in the proposed rule would have 
prohibited the use of Appendix VIII and the supplements to Appendix 
VIII, and Article I-3000 in the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of 
the ASME BPV Code. The elements of the Performance Demonstration 
Initiative (PDI) program were added to Appendix VIII and its 
supplements and Article I-3000 in the 2002 Addenda. PDI is an 
organization formed for the purpose of developing efficient, cost-
effective, and technically sound UT performance demonstration methods 
to meet Appendix VIII requirements. The PDI program has evolved as 
programs were developed for each Appendix VIII supplement. Article I-
3000, Examination Coverage, was also added in the 2002 Addenda to 
provide UT examination coverage criteria for certain welds.
    The final rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), requires 
licensees to implement Appendix VIII and its supplements. The essential 
elements of the PDI program were added to the final rule as Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) also provides UT examination 
coverage criteria. Licensees are currently implementing Appendix VIII 
and its supplements in accordance with Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Although 
the NRC, ASME, and PDI have made considerable progress in the

[[Page 58810]]

development of UT qualification and inspection requirements, the 
addition of the PDI program into Section XI are not complete at this 
time. As a result, differences exist between the modifications in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv), and the provisions in Appendix VIII and its 
supplements and Article I-3000 in the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section 
XI of the ASME BPV Code. Therefore, Appendix VIII and its supplements 
and the UT coverage criteria in Article I-3000 can not be implemented 
in accordance with Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv) when using the 2002 and 2003 
Addenda. Consequently, the proposed rule would have prohibited the use 
of Appendix VIII and its supplements and Article I-3000 beyond the 2001 
Edition.
    The proposed rule stated that conflicts exist between the 
modifications in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv), and the UT coverage provisions 
in Article I-3000 in the 2002 and 2003 Addenda. Several commenters 
stated that the use of the term ``conflicts'' in the proposed rule was 
inappropriate. The NRC agrees and should have used term ``differences'' 
instead of ``conflicts.'' Commenters acknowledged that there are 
differences between the UT coverage requirements in Article I-3000 and 
the UT coverage requirements in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv).
    A number of commenters requested that the proposed limitation in 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) be revised to allow the use of the UT coverage 
requirements in Article I-3000. Commenters stated that the NRC should 
accept the UT coverage requirements in Article I-3000 as an alternative 
to the UT coverage requirements in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv). The NRC 
disagrees. Article I-3000 requires that the UT coverage provisions be 
applied when using UT examination procedures, equipment, and personnel 
qualified by performance demonstration in accordance with Appendix 
VIII. The NRC believes that allowing the use of the UT coverage 
requirements in Article I-3000 would require revising the existing UT 
coverage requirements in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to provide licensees 
the choice of continuing to use the existing UT coverage requirements 
in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv) or using the UT coverage requirements in 
Article I-3000. It is not the NRC's intention to periodically revise 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to add new elements of the PDI program as the 
program evolves. The purpose of the modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) is to provide a short-term solution that allows 
licensees to implement an Appendix VIII program. The long-term solution 
is to add the elements of the PDI program to Section XI or develop a 
code case that can be used to implement Appendix VIII and remove Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) from 10 CFR 50.55a. Therefore, Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)--Mitigation of Defects by ``Modification''
    Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) in the proposed rule would have 
prohibited the use of the provisions in IWA-4340 when using the 2001 
Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV 
Code. IWA-4340 was added in the 2000 Addenda and provides requirements 
for the mitigation of defects by ``modification.'' Paragraph IWA-4340 
allows a defect to remain in a component provided that the defect can 
be eliminated from the pressure boundary by ``modification.''
    Commenters stated that although additional provisions were added in 
the 2000 Addenda, Section XI has always allowed mitigation of defects 
by ``modification.'' Commenters objected to the NRC prohibiting the use 
of this longstanding Code requirement. Commenters also stated that 
prohibiting the use of IWA-4340 would significantly impact licensees in 
terms of cost, resources, and plant shutdowns. IWA-4340 
``modifications'' can be designed and installed by most plants within 
the 72-hour technical specification allowed outage time. These 
``modifications'' are typically used when replacement or excavation and 
repair welding of the defect cannot be performed within the technical 
specification allowed outage time. Commenters stated that it is not 
unusual for a plant to install several ``modifications'' in an 
operating cycle. Commenters stated that licensees would have to request 
authorization of an alternative pursuant to Sec.  50.55a(a)(3) to 
install modifications if use of IWA-4340 is prohibited. This would 
result in a significant increase in regulatory burden, costs, and plant 
outage time and would also adversely impact NRC resources. The NRC 
disagrees that the mitigation of a defect by ``modification'' in 
Section XI is a longstanding Code provision. Section XI does not 
specifically address mitigation of defects by ``modification'' in the 
editions and addenda prior to the 2000 Addenda. The NRC is also unaware 
of any ASME Section XI interpretation that specifically addresses 
mitigation of defects by ``modification.'' Furthermore, the NRC has 
authorized many alternatives pursuant to Sec.  50.55a(a)(3) that are 
similar to those in IWA-4340. These alternatives were authorized on a 
case-by-case basis and addressed pressure testing, flaw growth 
evaluation, and reexamination requirements. Licensees believed these 
modifications were not permitted by the ASME Code, and therefore, 
concluded that authorizations of alternatives were necessary. Although 
some Section XI code cases address repair of defects on a limited 
basis, such as the use of weld overlays, new provisions for repairing 
defects were added in the 2000 Addenda.
    One commenter stated that the NRC had previously approved the use 
of provisions that are similar to those in IWA-4340. The commenter 
stated that the NRC should approve the same provisions in IWA-4340. The 
NRC agrees that, in some instances, it had previously approved the use 
of mitigative methods or alternatives that could fall under the 
provisions of IWA-4340, but the methods approved by the NRC were 
significantly more comprehensive than those in IWA-4340. For example, 
the NRC approved the use of Code Case N-504-2, ``Alternative Rule for 
Repair of Class 1, 2, and 3 Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping,'' in 
Regulatory Guide 1.147. The NRC notes that the provisions in Code Case 
N-504-2 are significantly more comprehensive than the provisions 
required by IWA-4340. The NRC has also authorized use of weld overlays 
as corrective action for intergranular stress corrosion cracking in 
plant-specific submittals. Authorization was based on adequate flaw 
evaluation, examination frequency, and pressure testing provided by 
licensees in their proposed alternative. However, the NRC has also 
disapproved the use of mitigative methods that would be allowed under 
IWA-4340. For example, the NRC disapproved the use of Code Case N-562-
1, ``Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of Class 3 
Moderate Energy Carbon Steel Piping,'' in Regulatory Guide 1.193, 
``ASME Code Cases Not Approved For Use.'' The NRC disapproved the use 
of Code Case N-562-1 because the ASME Code and the code case do not 
provide criteria for determining the rate of the extent of degradation 
of the repair or surrounding base metal and do not specify examination 
requirements.
    The proposed rule stated that IWA-4520(b)(2) exempts piping, pump 
and valve welding or brazing that does not penetrate through the 
pressure boundary from any pressure test. Since the modification to 
mitigate the defect will become the new pressure boundary and the 
modification may be attached to the pressure boundary by welds that do 
not penetrate through the pressure boundary, pressure testing would not 
be required. The NRC proposed to not

[[Page 58811]]

accept the elimination of pressure testing requirements for a 
modification that will function as a pressure boundary.
    Commenters stated that the reference to IWA-4520(b)(2) in the 
proposed rule is incorrect. The NRC agrees. The NRC intended to 
reference IWA-4540(b)(3) in the proposed rule. IWA-4540(b)(3) exempts 
piping, pump and valve welding or brazing that does not penetrate 
through the pressure boundary from pressure testing, not IWA-
4520(b)(2).
    Commenters did not discuss if the pressure test exemption in IWA-
4540(b)(3) would be applicable to IWA-4340 ``modifications.'' They 
simply stated that Section XI requires a pressure test for new welds 
that are a part of the pressure boundary. The NRC agrees that pressure 
testing for new pressure boundary weld is a requirement. However, the 
NRC is concerned that licensees could interpret the provisions in IWA-
4540(b)(3) that pressure tests are not required for certain IWA-4340 
modifications such as an encapsulation of a defect that does not yet, 
but eventually could, breach the pressure boundary for example. The NRC 
believes that pressure testing the ``modification'' is necessary to 
validate the structural integrity of the ``modification.''
    The proposed rule stated that IWA-4340(c) requires that each 
licensee define the successive examinations to be performed after the 
completion of the ``modification.'' The purpose of the successive 
examinations is to monitor the defect to detect propagation beyond the 
limits of the ``modification'' and, when practicable, to validate the 
projected growth of the defect. The Code is unclear as to whether it 
permits a defect to propagate outside the physical boundary of the 
``modification'' or requires that a licensee's examination program 
predict propagation of the defect such that the licensee would be able 
to identify, in advance, a defect that is expected to propagate outside 
the area physically modified such that corrective action could be 
taken.
    Commenters explained that a flaw outside of the modification might 
be acceptable until it reached the condition of a defect. The condition 
would be unacceptable if the flaw propagated into a defect. Commenters 
also indicated that because each ``modification'' is unique, it is not 
possible to specify examination frequency criteria that could be 
applied to all defects that are mitigated by ``modification.'' 
Commenters stated that IWA-4340(c) requires that, if practicable, the 
growth of the defect be predicted and licensees establish an 
examination method that would demonstrate that the defect has not 
propagated beyond the limits of the ``modification.'' The examinations 
would also validate the predicted growth assumptions. In other cases, 
it may not be practical to predict the growth of the defect. Commenters 
stated that the examination frequency would have to account for this 
condition. The NRC believes that IWA-4340(c) is unacceptable because it 
does not specify minimum periodic examinations that are capable of 
validating the predicted defect growth assumptions. The NRC believes 
that it is appropriate for the Code to establish minimum periodic 
examination requirements. Licensees may always do more than Code 
minimum requirements.
    One commenter states that it is inappropriate for the NRC to modify 
the use of Code provisions that were previously accepted by the NRC. 
The NRC disagrees. The modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) was not 
included in the final rule that incorporated by reference the 2000 
Addenda of Section XI in Sec.  50.55a (67 FR 60520: September 26, 2002) 
due to an oversight by the NRC. The NRC did not identify that these 
Code provisions were added when it reviewed the 2000 Addenda of Section 
XI. The NRC has determined that this modification should only apply to 
those licensees who implement the 2001 Edition and later editions and 
addenda of Section XI, and should not be backfit to those licensees who 
update their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000 
Addenda in accordance with Sec.  50.55a(g)(4)(ii). The NRC has 
determined it is acceptable not to backfit the licensees who update 
their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000 Addenda 
because those licensees will be required at the next 10-year interval 
to update their ISI programs to prohibit the relevant Code provisions. 
Thus, any problems would be caught during the next 10-year interval. 
The prohibition of the relevant Code provisions is not considered a 
backfit because they are imposed only as part of the routine updating 
required as part of the 120-month updating and do not constitute a 
significant change to, or fundamental modification of, the existing ISI 
program.
    Although not discussed in the proposed rule, the NRC has additional 
concerns about the use of IWA-4340. For example, Section XI, Appendix 
I, Ultrasonic Examination, directs users to the specific examination 
methods to be followed, including the performance demonstration 
requirements of Appendix VIII for certain components. IWA-4340(a) 
states that defects shall be characterized using nondestructive 
examination but has no specific requirements regarding nondestructive 
examination methods to be used. The NRC believes that IWA-4340(a) 
should specify the qualification requirements and examination methods 
by reference to existing rules in the Code where applicable, or where 
not applicable, the process to be followed to demonstrate the 
capability of the techniques to be used.
    IWA-4340 could be used to mitigate non-planar defects, such as 
caused by flow accelerated corrosion or microbiological induced 
corrosion. The ASME has issued certain code cases, such as Code Cases 
N-561-1, ``Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of 
Class 2 and High Energy Class 3 Carbon Steel Piping,'' and N-562-1, 
dealing with wall thickness restoration for non-planar defects. The NRC 
has found these code cases to be unacceptable because of the absence of 
criteria concerning the extent and rate of degradation of the repair 
and reinspection frequencies and because the root cause of the 
degradation may not be mitigated. For similar reasons, the NRC finds 
IWA-4340 unacceptable for use to mitigate non-planar defects.
    Licensees have proposed to mitigate circumferential defects above 
the partial penetration weld in control rod drive nozzles by partially 
removing the defect and replacing the removed material with weldment, 
thereby ``embedding'' the defect. The NRC has found such proposals to 
be unacceptable because of the possibility of additional cracking in 
the embedding weld and because of safety concerns posed by severance of 
the nozzle. The NRC finds IWA-4340 unacceptable because it could be 
used to mitigate such defects.
    Under IWA-4340, if a defect were to propagate beyond the limits of 
a modification, a licensee could perform repeated repairs to the same 
location. The NRC believes this is unacceptable because it would 
represent a failure of the original evaluation to correctly predict the 
projected growth of the defect.
    For these reasons, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) is adopted without 
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)--Pressure Testing Mechanical Joints
    Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) of the proposed rule would have 
supplemented the test provisions in IWA-4540 of the 2001 Edition and 
the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code to require 
that Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints be

[[Page 58812]]

pressure tested in accordance with IWA-4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of 
Section XI. The requirements to pressure test Class 1, 2, and 3 
mechanical joints undergoing repair and replacement activities were 
deleted in the 1999 Addenda of Section XI. Therefore, pressure testing 
of mechanical joints is no longer required by Section XI when 
performing IWA-4000 repair and replacement activities. The proposed 
rule would have retained the pressure and testing requirements in IWA-
4540(c) of the 1998 Edition when using the 2001 Edition through 2003 
Addenda because there was no justification for eliminating the 
requirements for pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints. 
Pressure testing of mechanical joints affected by repair and 
replacement activities is necessary to ensure and verify the integrity 
of the pressure boundary. In the proposed rule, the NRC requested that 
commenters provide additional information that can be used to justify 
the elimination of the pressure tests requirements in IWA-4540(c) of 
the 1998 Edition of Section XI.
    Several commenters stated that the Code requirement to conduct a 
system leakage test during operation at nominal operating pressure to 
verify leakage after reassembly of a mechanical joint was deleted in 
the 1999 Addenda of Section XI. The commenters indicated that this Code 
requirement was deleted because mechanical joint leakage is not 
prohibited by Section XI. The commenters contend that Section XI does 
not provide leakage acceptance criteria, and it has always been the 
responsibility of each licensee to determine if the leakage is 
acceptable and if corrective action is required. Furthermore, they 
contend that the purpose of the system leakage test in the 1998 Edition 
and earlier editions and addenda of Section XI is to monitor for 
leakage not verify the structural integrity of the pressure boundary. 
One commenter pointed out that the revised system leakage test 
requirements in the 1999 Addenda and later editions and addenda are 
consistent with the construction requirements for mechanical joint 
leakage in Section III of the ASME Code. Section III does not prohibit 
leakage at mechanical connections and only requires that mechanical 
connection leakage not mask leakage at other joints. Commenters stated 
that operators and system engineers periodically monitor systems for 
leakage and evaluate if corrective action is warranted when leakage is 
identified. Commenters also stated that post maintenance test programs 
specify requirements for leak testing mechanical connections following 
reassembly. Section XI does not provide any acceptance criteria for 
mechanical joint leakage following reassembly, and it has always been 
the responsibility of licensees to determine if corrective action is 
warranted.
    The NRC and commenters generally agree that repaired or replaced 
mechanical joints should be pressure tested following Code repair and 
replacement activities. However, the NRC and commenters disagree on the 
role of the Code for providing this guidance. The NRC believes that it 
is inappropriate to rely on regulations or programs other than the 
Code, such as testing requirements in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, 
``Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel 
Reprocessing Plants,'' to provide detailed test requirements for 
mechanical joint repair and replacement activities. With the exception 
of Section XI, there are no other NRC regulations that provide detailed 
guidance on pressure testing mechanical joints that are repaired or 
replaced in accordance with Section XI. The test requirements in 
Section XI are technically correct and are also consistent with the 
test requirements in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50. After consideration 
of public comments, the NRC finds that Code pressure testing of 
mechanical joints after repair and replacement activities is still 
warranted, and that reliance on programs which are not under Code 
jurisdiction is not an appropriate substitute for specifying Code 
repair and replacement requirements.
    One commenter states that it is inappropriate for the NRC to modify 
the use of Code provisions that were previously accepted by the NRC. 
The NRC disagrees. The modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) was not 
included in the final rule that incorporated by reference the 1999 
Addenda of Section XI in Sec.  50.55a (67 FR 60520: September 26, 2002) 
due to an oversight by the NRC. The NRC did not identify that these 
Code provisions were added when it reviewed the 1999 Addenda of Section 
XI. The NRC has determined that this modification should only apply to 
those licensees who implement the 2001 Edition and later editions and 
addenda of Section XI, and should not be backfit to those licensees who 
update their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000 
Addenda in accordance with Sec.  50.55a(g)(4)(ii). The NRC has 
determined it is acceptable not to backfit the licensees who update 
their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000 Addenda, 
because those licensees will be required at the next 10-year interval 
to update their ISI programs to prohibit the relevant Code provisions. 
Thus, any problems would be caught during the next 10-year interval. 
The prohibition of the relevant Code provisions is not considered a 
backfit because they are imposed only as part of the routine updating 
required as part of the 120-month updating and do not constitute a 
significant change to, or fundamental modification of, the existing ISI 
program.
    For these reasons, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) is adopted without 
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii)--Removal of Insulation
    The proposed modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) consisted of 
two parts. The first part would have supplemented a new provision in 
IWA-5242(a) to require that insulation be removed before conducting 
visual examinations on bolting susceptible to stress corrosion cracking 
(SCC). The purpose of IWA-5242 is to periodically examine bolted 
connections for evidence of boric acid leakage. The 17-4 precipitation-
hardened (PH) stainless steels and the 410 stainless steels installed 
in borated systems are susceptible to SCC when aged at a temperature 
below 1100 [deg]F or have a Rockwell Method C hardness value above 30. 
A-286 stainless steel studs or bolts are also susceptible to SCC when 
preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square inch or higher. Thus, the 
insulation must be removed to visually examine these bolting materials. 
Code Case N-616, ``Alternative Requirements for VT-2 Visual Examination 
of Classes 1, 2, and 3 Insulated Pressure Retaining Bolted Connections 
Section XI, Division 1,'' included, among other things, a provision 
allowing bolted connections with certain bolting materials to be 
examined without removing the insulation. However, this could prevent 
identification of signs of degraded bolting if the bolting is 
susceptible to SCC. The provisions of Code Case N-616 were added to 
IWA-5242(a) in the 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The 
NRC also conditionally accepted the use of Code Case N-616 in 
Regulatory Guide 1.147, by requiring that insulation be removed to 
examine 17-4 PH stainless steel or 410 stainless steel studs or bolts 
aged at a temperature below 1100 [deg]F or with a Rockwell Method C 
hardness value above 30; and A-286 stainless steel studs or bolts 
preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square inch or higher.
    One commenter stated that the ASME determined that a VT-2 visual 
examination may not be able to detect

[[Page 58813]]

SCC in 17-4 PH and 410 stainless steel installed in borated systems and 
recommended that NRC not adopt the modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) requiring removal of insulation prior to examining 
17-4 PH and 410 stainless steel studs or bolts. The NRC agrees that it 
is not the intent of a VT-2 visual examination to detect SCC. However, 
VT-2 visual examination is an effective method for determining when 
conditions necessary to support SCC, such as boric acid leakage on or 
near a bolted connection, are present. The NRC believes that it is not 
prudent to attempt to detect boric acid leakage with insulation in 
place on connections bolted with materials susceptible to SCC. For 
these reasons, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) requiring that insulation be 
removed when conducting visual examinations on bolting susceptible to 
SCC is adopted without change in this final rule.
    The second part of Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) in the proposed rule 
would have supplemented IWA-5242(a) to require that a VT-2 examination 
of bolted connections be performed during system leakage tests. One 
commenter noted that the reason for this part of the proposed 
modification was not specifically addressed in the statement of 
considerations for the proposed rule. The NRC agrees. The proposed rule 
identified two areas in IWA-5242(a) that need to be supplemented, and 
the statement of considerations only described one of the areas. The 
reason for the second part of Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) is as follows. 
Requirement (a) of Code Case N-533-1, ``Alternative Requirements for 
VT-2 Visual Examination of Class 1, 2, and 3 Insulated Pressure-
Retaining Bolted Connections,'' states that a ``system pressure test 
and VT-2 visual examination shall be performed each refueling outage 
for Class 1 connections and each period for Class 2 and 3 connections 
without removal of insulation.'' With the exception of Requirement (a), 
the other provisions of Code Case N-533-1 were added to IWA-5242(a) in 
the 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The NRC proposed 
this modification because it appeared that all of the provisions of 
Code Case N-533-1 were not added in the 2003 Addenda. After further 
review, the NRC concludes that VT-2 examination of insulated bolted 
connections during system leakage tests is required by Tables IWB/C/D-
2500-1 and by IWA-5241 of Section XI. Tables IWB/C/D-2500-1 require VT-
2 visual examination during system leakage testing for all pressure 
retaining components. Paragraph IWA-5241 requires VT-2 visual 
examination of the accessible external exposed surfaces of pressure-
retaining components for evidence of leakage and applies to insulated 
and non-insulated components. Therefore, the proposed requirement that 
a VT-2 examination of bolted connections be performed during system 
leakage tests is not adopted in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii)--Reconciliation of Quality Assurance 
Requirements
    Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) of the proposed rule would have 
supplemented a new provision in IWA-4226.1 to require that repair/
replacement components be manufactured, procured, and controlled as 
safety-related under a quality assurance program meeting the 
requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. The proposed rule stated 
that the purpose of IWA-4226.1 (2003 Addenda) and Code Case N-554-2, 
``Alternative Requirements for Reconciliation of Replacement Items and 
Addition of New Systems,'' Section XI, Division 1 is to provide 
requirements for reconciling design requirements when using later 
editions of a construction code or Section III. The proposed rule 
stated that IWA-4226.1 and Code Case N-554-2 do not require 
reconciliation of the quality assurance requirements for certification, 
Code symbol stamping, data reports, and authorized inspection. For 
example, a component manufactured in a commercial shop that does not 
have a quality assurance program could be used in a safety-related 
application without having to reconcile quality assurance requirements. 
In Regulatory Guide 1.147, the NRC conditionally accepted the use of 
Code Case N-554-2 by requiring that repair/replacement components be 
manufactured, procured, and controlled as safety-related under a 
quality assurance program meeting the requirements of Appendix B to 10 
CFR Part 50. The modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) in the 
proposed rule would have imposed the same quality assurance 
requirements on IWA-4226.1.
    One commenter stated that the proposed modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) would prevent licensees from using a commercial 
grade dedication program to fabricate or procure components that are no 
longer available through an Appendix B supplier. The commenter proposed 
a revision to Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) that would allow licensees to 
use a commercial grade dedication program to fabricate or procure 
components, if necessary. The NRC notes that it was not the intent of 
the modification in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) in the proposed rule to 
prevent licensees from using a commercial grade dedication program to 
fabricate or procure components that are no longer available through an 
Appendix B supplier. Another commenter stated the proposed modification 
in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is unnecessary because the revision to 
IWA-4226.1 in the 2003 Addenda is not associated with the fabrication 
or procurement of components. This same commenter stated that a 
component manufactured in a commercial shop that does not have a 
quality assurance program would not be permitted in an application 
within the jurisdiction of Section XI unless that practice was 
permitted by the original Construction Code. In this case, a licensee 
may purchase replacement material, parts, or components from a 
commercial vendor and dedicate them for use in a nuclear power plant in 
accordance with its quality assurance program. The NRC agrees with the 
second commenter. The proposed modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is unnecessary because the revision to IWA-4226.1 
(2003 Addenda) does not change component procurement or fabrication 
requirements. Furthermore, the existing modification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), Reconciliation of Quality Requirements, requires 
that replacement parts be purchased, to the extent necessary, in 
accordance with the licensee's quality assurance program. In 
consideration of public comments, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is not 
adopted in this final rule.

2.3 ASME OM Code

    The proposed rule would have revised Sec.  50.55a(b)(3) to 
incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda 
of the ASME OM Code. Accordingly, the existing modifications for motor-
operated valves, snubbers, and manual valves in Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(ii), 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(v), and Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(vi), respectively, would 
continue to apply when using the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 
the ASME OM Code. The modifications in Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(ii), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(3)(v), and Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(vi) continue to apply to the 
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of ASME OM Code because the earlier 
Code provisions on which these regulations are based were not revised 
in the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code to address 
the underlying issues which led to the NRC to impose the modifications. 
There were no public comments

[[Page 58814]]

received on Sec.  50.55a(b)(3), Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(ii), Sec.  
50.55a(b)(3)(v), and Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(vi) and, therefore, these 
provisions are adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(i)--Quality Assurance
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing quality assurance 
requirements in Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(i) to state that ISTA-1500 is 
applicable when using the 1998 Edition and later editions and addenda 
of the ASME OM Code. Subsections of the ASME OM Code were renumbered in 
the 1998 Edition; therefore, Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(i) is revised to 
account for the renumbering. This revision does not change requirements 
in a substantive manner. There were no public comments received on 
Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(i) and, therefore, this provision is adopted without 
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iii)--Code Case OMN-1
    The proposed rule would have revised Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(iii) to 
eliminate the authorization to use Code Case OMN-1. The existing 
regulation in Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(iii) authorizes the use of Code Case 
OMN-1. Code Case OMN-1 is now approved in Regulatory Guide 1.192, 
``Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code.'' 
Regulatory Guide 1.192 (Revision 0) was incorporated by reference into 
Sec.  50.55a in a final rule dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40469). Thus, it 
is no longer necessary to authorize the use of Code Case OMN-1 in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(3)(iii) because this code case is now included in Regulatory 
Guide 1.192. There were no public comments received on Sec.  
50.55a(b)(3)(iii) and, therefore, this provision is adopted without 
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iv)--Check Valve Monitoring Program
    The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for 
the check valve monitoring program in Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(iv) to 
continue prohibiting use of the 1995 Edition through 2002 Addenda of 
the ASME OM Code. The modification in (b)(3)(iv) does not apply to the 
2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code because the earlier Code provisions on 
which this regulation was based were revised in the 2003 Addenda of the 
ASME OM Code to address the underlying issues which led to the NRC to 
impose the modification. The check valve monitoring program 
requirements in Appendix II of the 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code are 
equivalent to the check valve monitoring program requirements in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(3)(iv). There were no public comments received on (b)(3)(iv) 
and, therefore, this provision is adopted without change in this final 
rule.

3. Section-by-Section Analysis for 50.55a

    Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph requires new applicants for a 
nuclear power plant who submit an application for a construction permit 
under 10 CFR Part 50 after the effective date of this rule use the 2001 
Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III, Division 1 of the 
ASME BPV Code for the design and construction of the reactor coolant 
pressure boundary and Quality Group B and C components. The statement 
of considerations for the proposed rule (69 FR 886) indicated that the 
proposed rule would require, inter alia, applicants for design 
certifications under 10 CFR Part 52 to use the 2001 Edition and the 
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. 
However, the language of the proposed rule did not provide for such 
applicability, and upon further consideration, the NRC believes that 
additional issues relating to the application of ASME Code to design 
certifications and other regulatory processes in Part 52 need to be 
considered. Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to extend by 
rulemaking these ASME BPV Code provisions to design certifications, and 
no rule change is necessary to accomplish this. This paragraph also 
requires that existing modifications and limitations for weld leg 
dimensions, seismic design, and independence of inspection in 
Sec. Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(ii), 50.55a(b)(1)(iii), and 50.55a(b)(1)(v), 
respectively, apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section 
III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(ii). This paragraph reconciles the change in 
footnote numbers in Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 in 
Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code that were renumbered. 
There are no substantive changes in this paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(vi). This paragraph approves the use of Subsection 
NH, ``Class 1 Components in Elevated Temperature Service,'' 1995 
Addenda through 2003 Addenda, for only the design and construction of 
Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves where service 
conditions do not cause the component to reach temperatures exceeding 
900 [deg]F. Licensees may not employ the special design methodologies 
for high temperatures described in Subsection NH for the design and 
construction of other Class 1 reactor coolant pressure boundary 
component applications absent specific approval by the NRC.
    Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph requires licensees of nuclear 
power plants to use the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code when updating their 
inservice inspection programs in their subsequent 120-month interval 
under Sec.  50.55a(g)(4)(ii). Existing modifications and limitations 
for quality assurance, Class 1 piping, underwater welding, 
certification of nondestructive examination personnel, substitution of 
alternative method, and Table IWB-2500-1 examination requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(x), 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), 
50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi), 
respectively, apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section 
XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. This paragraph also adds Footnote 
10 which states that enhanced reactor pressure vessel head inspections 
have been imposed by order at pressurized water reactors, and that the 
NRC will determine the need for supplemental inspection requirements to 
be imposed through rulemaking.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(viii). This paragraph requires that the existing 
modification for examination of concrete containments in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(viii) apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code, and that a new 
modification, Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G), apply to the 2001 Edition 
through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(viii)(G). This new paragraph requires that 
corrosion protection medium be restored in accordance with the quality 
assurance program requirements specified in IWA-1400 following IWL-4000 
repair and replacement activities conducted on concrete containment 
post-tensioning systems when using the 2001 Edition through 2003 
Addenda Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(ix). This paragraph requires that the existing 
modification for examination of metal containments and the liners of 
concrete containments in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(ix) apply to the 2001 
Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV 
Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xiii). This paragraph no longer includes the 
authorization to use Code Case N-513. Authorization to use Code Case N-
513 is now provided in Regulatory Guide 1.147, which has been 
incorporated by reference into Sec.  50.55a.

[[Page 58815]]

    Paragraph (b)(2)(xiv). The paragraph requires that the existing 
modification for Appendix VIII personnel qualification in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 
Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code. The paragraph also 
corrects an oversight by clarifying that the annual practice 
requirements in VII-4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI, Division 1 of 
the ASME BPV Code may be used.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xv). This paragraph requires the existing 
modification for Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification 
requirements in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv) apply to the 2001 Edition of 
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). This paragraph specifies that the flaw 
depth sizing provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to 
Appendix VIII of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code are not 
applicable when Appendix VIII is implemented in accordance with the 
provisions in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xv).
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(J). This paragraph no longer includes the 
authorization to use Code Case N-552. Authorization to use Code Case N-
552 is now provided in Regulatory Guide 1.147, which has been 
incorporated by reference into Sec.  50.55a. Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(J) is 
reserved for future use.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xvii). This paragraph limits the existing 
modification for reconciliation of quality requirements in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) to apply only to the 1995 Addenda through 1998 
Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xx). This paragraph limits the existing 
modification for system leakage tests in Sec.  50.55a(b)(2)(xx) to 
apply only to the 1997 Addenda through 2002 Addenda of Section XI, 
Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xxii). This new paragraph prohibits the use of the 
provision in IWA-2220, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code, that allows the use of an 
ultrasonic examination method to conduct a surface examination. 
Licensees must conduct an IWA-2220 surface examination using magnetic 
particle, liquid penetrant, or eddy current method.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xxiii). This new paragraph prohibits the use of 
the provisions for eliminating mechanical processing of thermally cut 
surfaces in IWA-4461.4.2 of the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xxiv). This new paragraph prohibits the use of 
Appendix VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII and Article I-3000 
of the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV 
Code. Licensees are required to implement Appendix VIII and its 
supplements in accordance with the alternative provided in paragraph 
(b)(2)(xv). Licensees are also required to use the coverage 
requirements in paragraph (b)(2)(xv).
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xxv). This new paragraph prohibits the use of IWA-
4340, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI that 
allows the mitigation of defects by modification.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xxvi). This new paragraph requires that the Class 
1, 2, and 3 mechanical joint pressure and test provisions in IWA-
4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of Section XI of the ASME Code be used when 
repair and replacement activities are conducted in accordance with the 
2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME 
BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(xxvii). This new paragraph requires that the 
insulation be removed from 17-4 PH or 410 stainless steel studs or 
bolts aged at a temperature below 1100 [deg]F or having a Rockwell 
Method C hardness value above 30, and from A-286 stainless steel studs 
or bolts preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square inch or higher when 
performing visual examinations in accordance with IWA-5242 of the 2003 
Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
    Paragraph (b)(3). This paragraph requires licensees of nuclear 
power plants to use the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 
the ASME OM Code when updating their inservice test programs in their 
subsequent 120-month inspection intervals under Sec.  50.55a(f)(4)(ii). 
This paragraph also requires the existing modifications and limitations 
for quality assurance, motor-operated valve testing, snubbers, and 
manual valves in Sec. Sec.  50.55a(b)(3)(i), 50.55a(b)(3)(ii), 
50.55a(b)(3)(v), and 50.55a(b)(3)(vi), respectively, apply to the 2001 
Edition through 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code.
    Paragraph (b)(3)(i). This paragraph reconciles the different 
subsection and paragraph numbers of the ASME OM Code that were 
renumbered in the 1998 Edition and subsequent editions and addenda. 
There are no substantive changes in this paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(3)(iii). This paragraph no longer includes the 
authorization to use Code Case OMN-1. Authorization to use Code Case 
OMN-1 is now provided in Regulatory Guide 1.192 which has been 
incorporated by reference into Sec.  50.55a. Paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is 
reserved for future use.
    Paragraph (b)(3)(iv). This paragraph limits the existing 
modification for the check valve monitoring program in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(3)(iv) to the 1995 Edition through 2002 Addenda of the ASME 
OM Code.

4. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report

    In July 2001, the NRC issued, ``Generic Aging Lessons Learned 
(GALL) Report,'' NUREG-1801, Volumes 1 and 2, for use by applicants in 
preparing their license renewal applications. The GALL report evaluates 
existing generic programs, documents the bases for determining when 
generic existing programs are adequate without change, and documents 
when generic existing programs should be augmented for license renewal. 
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code is one of the generic 
existing programs in the GALL report that is evaluated as an aging 
management program (AMP) for license renewal. Subsections IWB, IWC, 
IWD, IWF, IWE, and IWL of the 1995 Edition up to and including the 1996 
Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code for inservice inspection 
were evaluated in the GALL report, and the conclusions in the GALL 
report are valid for these edition and addenda.
    In the GALL report Sections XI.M1, ``ASME Section XI Inservice 
Inspection, Subsections IWB, IWC, and IWD,'' XI.S1, ``ASME Section XI, 
Subsection IWE,'' XI.S2, ``ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL,'' and 
XI.S3, ``ASME Section XI, Subsection IWF,'' describe the evaluation and 
technical bases for determining the adequacy of Subsections IWB, IWC, 
IWD, IWE, IWL, and IWF, respectively. In addition, many other AMPs in 
the GALL report rely in part, but to a lesser degree, on the 
requirements in the ASME Code, Section XI (i.e., XI.M3, XI.M4, XI.M5, 
XI.M6, XI.M7, XI.M8, XI.M9, XI.M11, XI.M12, XI.M13, XI.M14, XI.M15, 
XI.M16, XI.M18. XI.M24, XI.M25, and XI.M32).
    The NRC has completed an evaluation of Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, 
IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and 
the 2002 and 2003 Addenda) as part of the Sec.  50.55a amendment 
process to determine if the conclusions of the GALL report are also 
applicable for AMPs that rely upon the ASME Code editions and addenda 
which are incorporated by reference into Sec.  50.55a by the final 
rule. The NRC finds that the 2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 
Sections III and XI of the ASME BPV Code are acceptable and the 
conclusions of the GALL report remain valid. Accordingly, an applicant 
may

[[Page 58816]]

use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the 
ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda) as 
acceptable alternatives to the requirements of the 1995 Edition up to 
and including the 1996 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI referenced 
in the GALL AMPs without the need to submit these alternatives for NRC 
review in its plant-specific license renewal application. Similarly, a 
licensee approved for license renewal that relied on the GALL AMPs may 
use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the 
ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda) as 
acceptable alternatives to the AMPs described in the GALL report. 
However, a licensee must assess and follow applicable NRC requirements 
with regard to changes to its licensing basis.
    The GALL report identified areas of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 
Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code that require augmentation for 
license renewal. A license renewal applicant may either augment their 
AMPs in these areas as described in the GALL report or propose 
alternatives for NRC review in its plant-specific license renewal 
application. The GALL report's conclusions with respect to augmentation 
in connection with a license renewal application also apply when 
implementing the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section 
XI of the ASME Code.

5. Availability of Documents

    The NRC is making the documents identified below available to 
interested persons through one or more of the following methods as 
indicated.
    Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located 
at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    Rulemaking Web site (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web 
site is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. These documents may be 
viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site.
    NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR). The NRC's public 
electronic reading room is located at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
    NRC Staff Contact. Single copies of the Federal Register Notice, 
Regulatory Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Resolution of Public 
Comments can be obtained from Stephen Tingen, Division of Engineering, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Alternatively, you may contact 
Mr. Tingen at (301) 415-1280, or via e-mail at: [email protected].

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Document                       PDR       Web                  PERR                 NRC staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order EA-03-009..............................        X         X   ML 030380470....................           X
Revised Order EA-03-009......................        X         X   ML 040220181....................           X
SECY-03-0078.................................        X         X   ML 030700408....................           X
Federal Register Notice......................        X         X   ML 041200758....................           X
Regulatory Analysis..........................        X         X   ML 041200761....................           X
Environmental Assessment.....................        X         X   ML 041200768....................           X
Regulatory Guide 1.147, ``Inservice                  X         X   ML 040230509.
 Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME
 Section XI, Division 1,'' Revision 13.
Regulatory Guide 1.192, ``Operation and              X         X   ML 030730430.
 Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM
 Code,'' Revision 0.
NUREG-1801, ``Generic Aging Lessons Learned          X         X   Volume 1--ML 012060392, Volume
 (GALL) Report''.                                                   2--ML 012060514.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. 
L. 104-113, requires that if agencies establish technical standards, 
the agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard 
is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Pub. 
L. 104-113 requires Federal agencies to use industry consensus 
standards to the extent practical, however, it does not require Federal 
agencies to endorse a standard in its entirety. The law does not 
prohibit an agency from generally adopting a voluntary consensus 
standard while taking exception to specific portions of the standard if 
those provisions are deemed to be ``inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical.'' Furthermore, taking specific exceptions 
furthers the Congressional intent of Federal reliance on voluntary 
consensus standards because it allows the adoption of substantial 
portions of consensus standards without the need to reject the 
standards in their entirety because of limited provisions which are not 
acceptable to the agency.
    The NRC is amending its regulations to incorporate by reference a 
more recent edition and addenda of Sections III and XI of the ASME BPV 
Code and ASME OM Code for construction, inservice inspection, and 
inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. ASME BPV and OM 
Codes are national consensus standards developed by participants with 
broad and varied interests in which all interested parties (including 
the NRC and licensees of nuclear power plants) participate. In a staff 
requirements memorandum dated September 10, 1999, the Commission 
indicated its intent that a rulemaking identify all portions of an 
adopted voluntary consensus standard which are not adopted and to 
provide a justification for not adopting such portions. The portions of 
the ASME BPV Code and OM Code which the NRC does not adopt, or 
partially adopts, are identified in Section 2 of this final rule and 
the regulatory analysis. The justification for not adopting portions of 
the ASME BPV Code, as set forth in these statements of consideration 
and regulatory analysis for this rule satisfy the requirements of 
Section 12(d)(3) of Pub. L. 104-113, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) Circular A-119 and the Commission's direction in the staff 
requirements memorandum dated September 10, 1999.

7. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The Commission has determined, under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 
Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not be a major Federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, 
and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
    This rulemaking will not significantly increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents; no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be

[[Page 58817]]

released off-site; there is no increase in occupational exposure; and, 
there is no significant increase in public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological impacts associated 
with the proposed action. The rulemaking does not involve non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, no significant non-radiological impacts are associated with 
the action.
    The determination of this environmental assessment is that there 
will be no significant off-site impact to the public from this action. 
The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment on this final rule. 
The environmental assessment is available as indicated in Section 5, 
Availability of Documents, under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION heading.
    The NRC requested the views of the States on the environmental 
assessment for the rule and did not receive any comments from the 
States.

8. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule decreases the burden on licensees for recordkeeping 
requirements related to examinations, tests, and repair and replacement 
activities. The industry annual public burden reduction for this 
information collection is estimated at 713 hours. Because the burden 
reduction for this information collection is insignificant, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required. Existing 
requirements were approved by the OMB, approval number 3150-0011.

Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a request for information collection or an information 
collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

9. Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule. The 
analysis is available for review in the NRC's Public Document Room, 
located in One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in Section 
5, Availability of Documents, under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
heading.

10. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation 
of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not 
fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set 
forth in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 
CFR Part 121.

11. Backfit Analysis

    The NRC's Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, states that the Commission 
shall require the backfitting of a facility only when it finds the 
action to be justified under specific standards stated in the rule. 
Section 50.109(a)(1) defines backfitting as the modification of or 
addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; 
or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the 
procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a 
facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in 
the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position 
interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from 
a previously applicable staff position after issuance of the 
construction permit or the operating license or the design approval.
    Section 50.55a requires nuclear power plant licensees to construct 
ASME BPV Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components in accordance with the rules 
provided in Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code; inspect Class 
1, 2, 3, Class MC, and Class CC components in accordance with the rules 
provided in Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code; and test Class 
1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves in accordance with the rules provided in 
the ASME OM Code. This rule incorporates by reference the 2001 Edition 
and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME 
BPV Code; Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code; and the ASME OM 
Code.
    Incorporation by reference of more recent editions and addenda of 
Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code does not affect a plant 
that has received a construction permit or an operating license or a 
design that has been approved because the edition and addenda to be 
used in constructing a plant are, by rule, determined on the basis of 
the date of the construction permit and are not changed thereafter 
except voluntarily by the licensee. Thus, incorporation by reference of 
a more recent edition and addenda of Section III, Division 1 does not 
constitute a ``backfitting'' as defined in Sec.  50.109(a)(1).
    Incorporation by reference of more recent editions and addenda of 
Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code 
affect the inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) 
programs of operating reactors. However, the Backfit Rule generally 
does not apply to incorporation by reference of later editions and 
addenda of the ASME BPV Code (Section XI) and OM Code. The NRC's 
longstanding policy has been to incorporate later versions of the ASME 
Codes into its regulations. This is codified in Sec.  50.55a which 
requires licensees to revise their ISI and IST programs every 120 
months to the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV 
Code and the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference into Sec.  50.55a 
that is in effect 12 months prior to the start of a new 120-month ISI 
and IST interval. Thus, when the NRC endorses a later version of the 
Code, it is implementing this longstanding policy and requirement.
    Other circumstances where the NRC does not apply the Backfit Rule 
to the endorsement of a later Code are as follows:
    (1) When the NRC takes exception to a later ASME BPV Code or OM 
Code provision but merely retains the current existing requirement, 
prohibits the use of the later Code provision, limits the use of the 
later Code provision, or supplements the provisions in a later Code, 
the Backfit Rule does not apply because the NRC is not imposing new 
requirements. However, the NRC explains any such exceptions to the Code 
in the Statement of Considerations and regulatory analysis for the 
rule.
    (2) When an NRC exception relaxes an existing ASME BPV Code or OM 
Code provision but does not prohibit a licensee from using the existing 
Code provision, the Backfit Rule does not apply because the NRC is not 
imposing new requirements.
    (3) Modifications and limitations imposed during previous routine 
updates of Sec.  50.55a have established a precedent for determining 
which modifications or limitations are backfits or require a backfit 
analysis (final rules dated August 6, 1992 (57 FR 34666), August 8, 
1996 (61 FR 41303), September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), and September 26, 
2002 (67 FR 60520)). The application of the backfit requirements to 
modifications and limitations in the current rule are consistent with 
the application of backfit requirements to modifications and 
limitations in previous rules.
    There are some circumstances in which the endorsement of a later 
ASME BPV Code or OM Code introduces a

[[Page 58818]]

backfit. In these cases, the NRC would perform a backfit analysis or 
documented evaluation in accordance with Sec.  50.109. These include 
the following:
    (1) When the NRC endorses a later provision of the ASME BPV Code or 
OM Code that takes a substantially different direction from the 
existing requirements, the action is treated as a backfit. An example 
was the NRC's initial endorsement of Subsections IWE and IWL of Section 
XI which imposed containment inspection requirements on operating 
reactors for the first time. The final rule dated August 8, 1996 (61 FR 
41303), incorporated by reference in Sec.  50.55a the 1992 Edition with 
the 1992 Addenda of IWE and IWL of Section XI to require that 
containments be routinely inspected to detect defects that could 
compromise a containment's structural integrity. This action expanded 
the scope of Sec.  50.55a to include components that were not 
considered by the existing regulations to be within the scope of ISI. 
Since those requirements involved a substantially different direction, 
they were treated as backfits, and justified in accordance with the 
standards of 10 CFR 50.109.
    (2) When the NRC requires implementation of later ASME BPV Code or 
OM Code provision on an expedited basis, the action is treated as a 
backfit. This applies when implementation is required sooner than it 
would be required if the NRC simply endorsed the Code without any 
expedited language. An example was the rule dated September 22, 1999 
(64 FR 51370), which incorporated by reference the 1989 Addenda through 
the 1996 Addenda of Section III and Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and 
the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The final 
rule expedited the implementation of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 
Addenda of Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code for 
qualification of personnel and procedures for performing ultrasonic 
examinations. The expedited implementation of Appendix VIII was 
considered a backfit because licensees were required to implement the 
new requirements in Appendix VIII prior to the next 120-month ISI 
program inspection interval update. Another example was the final rule 
dated August 6, 1992 (57 FR 34666), which incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  50.55a the 1986 Addenda through the 1989 Edition of Section III 
and Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The final rule added a requirement 
to expedite the implementation of the revised reactor vessel shell weld 
examinations in the 1989 Edition of Section XI. Imposing these 
examinations was considered a backfit because licensees were required 
to implement the examinations prior to the next 120-month ISI program 
inspection interval update.
    (3) When the NRC takes an exception to a ASME BPV Code or OM Code 
provision and imposes a requirement that is substantially different 
from the existing requirement as well as substantially different than 
the later Code. An example was the adoption of dissimilar metal piping 
weld UT examination coverage requirements in the final rule dated 
September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60529), that incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  50.55a the 1997 though 2000 Addenda of Section XI. Dissimilar 
metal piping weld examination coverage requirements, although contained 
in the 1989 Edition and earlier editions and addenda of Section XI, are 
not addressed in the 1989 Addenda and later editions and addenda of 
Section XI. Therefore, the addition of dissimilar metal piping weld 
examination coverage requirements to the regulation was necessary.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)--Subsection NH
    The modification, Sec.  50.55a(b)(1)(b)(vi), adds a new limitation 
on the use of Subsection NH of the 1995 through 2003 Addenda of Section 
III of the ASME BPV Code for the design and construction of Class 1 
reactor coolant pressure boundary components. Subsection NH was added 
to Section III of the ASME BPV Code in the 1995 Addenda. The NRC has 
determined that this subsection was adopted in a final rule dated 
September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), without performing an adequate 
technical review.
    As discussed earlier, the NRC has determined that Subsection NH has 
been used to design and construct Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer 
heater sleeves that reach temperatures of up to 900 [deg]F, and that 
the use of Subsection NH for this application is acceptable. However, 
the NRC has not performed a full technical review of Subsection NH for 
other Class 1 components in future advanced reactor designs such as 
liquid metal and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designs where 
service conditions could reach 1500 [deg]F. Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in 
this final rule limits the application of Subsection NH to only 
pressurizer heater sleeves constructed from Type 316 stainless steel 
material where service conditions do not cause the component to reach 
temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F. The Backfit Rule does not apply to 
this limitation because, with the exception of Type 316 stainless steel 
pressurizer heater sleeves, licensees have not applied the provisions 
in Subsection NH to other Class 1 reactor coolant pressure boundary 
components. The Backfit Rule does not apply to rules that revise 
requirements that existing licensees have not applied or for future 
combined license applicants and design certification applicants even 
though such a rule may impact an applicant or licensee who was 
considering applying the provisions of Subsection NH to Class 1 reactor 
coolant pressure boundary components. For these reasons, the NRC 
concludes that limiting the application of Subsection NH to only Type 
316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves where service conditions 
do not cause the component to reach temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F 
does not constitute a backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

12. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a 
major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.

13. Miscellaneous Public Comments on Proposed Rule

Class MC Supports

    Several commenters stated that the ISI requirements for Class MC 
supports are not specifically addressed in Sec.  50.55a(g). The 
commenters requested that NRC revise Sec.  50.55a(g)(4) to clarify that 
Class MC supports must be included in ISI programs. The NRC disagrees 
with the commenters. The existing regulation in Sec.  50.55a(g) states 
that Class MC components and their ``integral attachments'' must meet 
the ISI requirements set forth in Section XI. The use of ``integral 
attachment'' in the regulation is consistent with the terminology used 
in Subsection IWF of Section XI (see Figure IWF-1300-1). The provisions 
for the ISI of Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Component supports are included in 
the scope of Subsection IWF. The use of the term ``integral 
attachment'' is used in Table IWF-1300-1 and includes welded supports 
to MC components.

NRC Participation on ASME Code Committees

    Several commenters stated that the number of modifications and 
limitations imposed by the NRC on later editions and addenda of the 
ASME Codes have

[[Page 58819]]

significantly increased and that the ASME and NRC committee members 
should strive to minimize the number of modifications and limitations. 
The NRC agrees that the number of modifications and limitations should 
be kept to a minimum. OMB Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in 
the Development and Use of voluntary Consensus Standards and in 
Conformity Assessment Activities,'' requires agency representatives on 
committees to ascertain the views of the agency to the extent possible 
and express views consistent with established agency views. It should 
be noted, however, that unanticipated events occasionally change the 
NRC position on an issue during final consideration.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

    Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire 
protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting 
criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 
1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the 
following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 
FACILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 
Stat. 936, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 
Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 
2233, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 
as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 
Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note).
    Section 50.7 also issued under Public Law 95-601, sec. 10, 92 
Stat. 2951(42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 
101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec. 
102, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 
50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 
939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 
50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). 
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, 
Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 
50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). 
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 
96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 
122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued 
under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix 
F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).


0
2. Section 50.55a is amended by:
0
(a) Removing and Reserving paragraphs (b)(2)(xv)(J) and (b)(3)(iii).
0
(b) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1), paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii), the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), the introductory 
text of paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) and (b)(2)(ix), paragraph (b)(2)(xiii), 
paragraph (b)(2)(xiv), and the introductory text of 
paragraph(b)(2)(xv), paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(C)(1), paragraph 
(b)(2)(xvii), paragraph (b)(2)(xx), the introductory text of paragraph 
(b)(3), paragraph (b)(3)(i), and the introductory text of paragraph 
(b)(3)(iv).
0
(c) Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(vi), (b)(2)(viii)(G), and (b)(2)(xxii) 
through (b)(2)(xxvii), and Footnote 10.


Sec.  50.55a  Codes and standards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) As used in this section, references to Section III of the ASME 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section III, and include the 
1963 Edition through 1973 Winter Addenda, and the 1974 Edition 
(Division 1) through the 2003 Addenda (Division 1), subject to the 
following limitations and modifications:
* * * * *
    (ii) Weld leg dimensions. When applying the 1989 Addenda through 
the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, licensees may not apply paragraph NB-
3683.4(c)(1), the footnote to circumferential fillet welded and socket 
welded joints in Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1 that permit a socket weld leg 
dimension to be less than 1.09 of the nominal wall thickness of the 
pipe or the footnote to circumferential fillet welded and socket welded 
joints in figure ND-3673.2(b)-1 that permit a socket weld leg dimension 
to be less than 1.09 of the nominal wall thickness of the pipe.
* * * * *
    (vi) Subsection NH. The provisions in Subsection NH, ``Class 1 
Components in Elevated Temperature Service,'' 1995 Addenda through the 
latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, may only be used for the design and 
construction of Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves 
where service conditions do not cause the component to reach 
temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F.
    (2) As used in this section, references to Section XI of the ASME 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section XI, and include the 
1970 Edition through the 1976 Winter Addenda, and the 1977 Edition 
(Division 1) through the 2003 Addenda (Division 1), subject to the 
following limitations and modifications:\10\
* * * * *
    (viii) Examination of concrete containments. Licensees applying 
Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, shall apply 
paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A) through (b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. 
Licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, 
shall apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A), (b)(2)(viii)(D)(3), and 
(b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Licensees applying Subsection IWL, 
1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda shall apply paragraphs 
(b)(2)(viii)(E) and (b)(2)(viii)(F) of this section. Licensees applying 
Subsection IWL, 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda 
incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall 
apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) through (b)(2)(viii)(G) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (G) Corrosion protection material must be restored following 
concrete containment post-tensioning system repair and replacement 
activities in accordance with the quality assurance program 
requirements specified in IWA-1400.
    (ix) Examination of metal containments and the liners of concrete 
containments. Licensees applying Subsection IWE, 1992 Edition with the 
1992 Addenda, or the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, shall satisfy 
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) through (b)(2)(ix)(E) of 
this section. Licensees applying Subsection IWE, 1998 Edition through 
the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, shall satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(ix)(A), (b)(2)(ix)(B), and (b)(2)(ix)(F) through (b)(2)(ix)(I) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (xiii) Mechanical clamping devices. Licensees may use the 
provisions of Code Case N-523-1, ``Mechanical Clamping Devices for 
Class 2 and 3 Piping.'' Licensee choosing to apply Code Case N-523-1 
shall apply all of its provisions.
    (xiv) Appendix VIII personnel qualification. All personnel 
qualified for performing ultrasonic examinations in accordance with 
Appendix VIII shall receive 8 hours of annual hands-on training on 
specimens that contain cracks. Licensees applying the 1999 Addenda 
through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section may use the annual practice 
requirements in VII-

[[Page 58820]]

4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI in place of the 8 hours of annual 
hands-on training provided that the supplemental practice is performed 
on material or welds that contain cracks, or by analyzing prerecorded 
data from material or welds that contain cracks. In either case, 
training must be completed no earlier than 6 months prior to performing 
ultrasonic examinations at a licensee's facility.
    (xv) Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification requirements. The 
following provisions may be used to modify implementation of Appendix 
VIII of Section XI, 1995 Edition through the 2001 Edition. Licensees 
choosing to apply these provisions shall apply all of the following 
provisions under this paragraph except for those in Sec.  
50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(F) which are optional.
* * * * *
    (C) * * *
    (1) A depth sizing requirement of 0.15 inch RMS must be used in 
lieu of the requirements in Subparagraphs 3.2(a) and 3.2(c), and a 
length sizing requirement of 0.75 inch RMS must be used in lieu of the 
requirement in Subparagraph 3.2(b).
* * * * *
    (J) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (xvii) Reconciliation of Quality Requirements. When purchasing 
replacement items, in addition to the reconciliation provisions of IWA-
4200, 1995 Addenda through 1998 Edition, the replacement items must be 
purchased, to the extent necessary, in accordance with the licensee's 
quality assurance program description required by 10 CFR 
50.34(b)(6)(ii).
* * * * *
    (xx) System leakage tests. When performing system leakage tests in 
accordance IWA-5213(a), 1997 through 2002 Addenda, a 10-minute hold 
time after attaining test pressure is required for Class 2 and Class 3 
components that are not in use during normal operating conditions, and 
no hold time is required for the remaining Class 2 and Class 3 
components provided that the system has been in operation for at least 
4 hours for insulated components or 10 minutes for uninsulated 
components.
    (xxii) Surface Examination. The use of the provision in IWA-2220, 
``Surface Examination,'' of Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest 
edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, that allow use of an ultrasonic examination method is 
prohibited.
    (xxiii) Evaluation of Thermally Cut Surfaces. The use of the 
provisions for eliminating mechanical processing of thermally cut 
surfaces in IWA-4461.4.2 of Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest 
edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section are prohibited.
    (xxiv) Incorporation of the Performance Demonstration Initiative 
and Addition of Ultrasonic Examination Criteria. The use of Appendix 
VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII and Article I-3000 of Section 
XI of the ASME BPV Code, 2002 Addenda through the latest edition and 
addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 
is prohibited.
    (xxv) Mitigation of Defects by Modification. The use of the 
provisions in IWA-4340, ``Mitigation of Defects by Modification,'' 
Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda 
incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are 
prohibited.
    (xxvi) Pressure Testing Class 1, 2, and 3 Mechanical Joints. The 
repair and replacement activity provisions in IWA-4540(c) of the 1998 
Edition of Section XI for pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical 
joints must be applied when using the 2001 Edition through the latest 
edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section.
    (xxvii) Removal of Insulation. When performing visual examinations 
in accordance with IWA-5242 of Section XI, 2003 Addenda through the 
latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph 
(b)(2) of the section, insulation must be removed from 17-4 PH or 410 
stainless steel studs or bolts aged at a temperature below 1100 [deg]F 
or having a Rockwell Method C hardness value above 30, and from A-286 
stainless steel studs or bolts preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square 
inch or higher.
    (3) As used in this section, references to the OM Code refer to the 
ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, and 
include the 1995 Edition through the 2003 Addenda subject to the 
following limitations and modifications:
    (i) Quality Assurance. When applying editions and addenda of the OM 
Code, the requirements of NQA-1, ``Quality Assurance Requirements for 
Nuclear Facilities,'' 1979 Addenda, are acceptable as permitted by ISTA 
1.4 of the 1995 Edition through 1997 Addenda or ISTA-1500 of the 1998 
Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, provided the licensee 
uses its 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, quality assurance program in 
conjunction with the OM Code requirements. Commitments contained in the 
licensee's quality assurance program description that are more 
stringent than those contained in NQA-1 govern OM Code activities. If 
NQA-1 and the OM Code do not address the commitments contained in the 
licensee's Appendix B quality assurance program description, the 
commitments must be applied to OM Code activities.
* * * * *
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) Appendix II. Licensees applying Appendix II, ``Check Valve 
Condition Monitoring Program,'' of the OM Code, 1995 Edition with the 
1996 and 1997 Addenda, shall satisfy the requirements of (b)(3)(iv)(A), 
(b)(3)(iv)(B), and (b)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. Licensees applying 
Appendix II, 1998 Edition through the 2002 Addenda, shall satisfy the 
requirements of (b)(3)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(iv)(B), and (b)(3)(iv)(D) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    Footnotes to Sec.  50.55a:
* * * * *
    \10\ Supplemental inservice inspection requirements for reactor 
vessel pressure heads have been imposed by Order EA-03-09 issued to 
licensees of pressurized water reactors. The NRC expects to develop 
revised supplemental inspection requirements, based in part upon a 
review of the initial implementation of the order, and will 
determine the need for incorporating the revised inspection 
requirements into 10 CFR 50.55a by rulemaking.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of September, 2004.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 04-21561 Filed 9-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P